Cronje and Another v Standard Bank of SA Ltd (NCT/103657/2018/141(1)) [2018] ZANCT 34 (11 June 2018)

Cronje and Another v Standard Bank of SA Ltd (NCT/103657/2018/141(1)) [2018] ZANCT 34 (11 June 2018)

The Tribunal found that the applicants failed to provide a reasonable explanation for the five-month delay in filing the main application. The explanation offered, including filing under the wrong section and pursuing alternative dispute resolution, was not sufficient. Furthermore, the National Credit Regulator had fully addressed the applicants' allegations and found them to be without merit, indicating no reasonable prospects of success in the main application. The respondent did not oppose the condonation application, but the Tribunal concluded that the applicants would not suffer prejudice if condonation was refused, as their allegations did not warrant a remedy under the National...

Citation
[2018] ZANCT 34
Parties
Applicant: Andre Daniel Cronje; Applicant: Sandra Ann Cronje; Respondent: Standard Bank of SA Ltd
Court
National Consumer Tribunal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
11 June 2018
Case Number
NCT/103657/2018/141(1)
Procedural Posture
Condonation Application / Ruling on Condonation for Late Filing
Outcome
Condonation for the late filing of the main application is refused.
Judges
FK Manamela
Legal Topics
Condonation, Late Filing, National Credit Act, Affordability Assessment, Reckless Credit Granting
Banking and Finance Civil Procedure Condonation Late Filing National Credit Act Affordability Assessment Reckless Credit Granting

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Andre Daniel Cronje

Applicant

Sandra Ann Cronje

Applicant

Standard Bank of SA Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Condonation Application / Ruling on Condonation for Late Filing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the late filing of the main application for leave to refer should be condoned.
  2. 2 Whether the applicants have shown good cause for condonation.
  3. 3 Whether there are reasonable prospects of success in the main application.

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal found that the applicants failed to provide a reasonable explanation for the five-month delay in filing the main application. The explanation offered, including filing under the wrong section and pursuing alternative dispute resolution, was not sufficient. Furthermore, the National Credit Regulator had fully addressed the applicants' allegations and found them to be without merit, indicating no reasonable prospects of success in the main application. The respondent did not oppose the condonation application, but the Tribunal concluded that the applicants would not suffer prejudice if condonation was refused, as their allegations did not warrant a remedy under the National...

Court Disposition

Condonation for the late filing of the main application is refused.

Orders

  • The late filing of the main application under section 141 is not condoned.
  • There is no order as to costs.